"Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part."

aa5 » November 27th, 2016, 7:17 am wrote:One place I think they get confused is they talk about a light wave like it is something separate from the aether. Eg.. like a physical thing travelling through water. But I view it like after an earthquake in the ocean, a force wave is travelling through the water. But that wave of force from the earthquake is not a physical thing. It is pushing the individual molecules of water, which then push the molecules next to them, and so on.

Nassim Haramein, and alternative researcher, has said that it's the space that is the stuff of particles. One new thing I have learned on this forum is that even alternative science researchers can be controlled opposition. But I think Haramein is correct, that particles are vortices in and of space. And propagation of a particle through space is similar to the wave on an ocean analogy.

"Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part."

[Emphasis added]Is that it then? 'We' now understand?

Notice that the Nobel Prize winning scientist still clings to Einstein's relativity (the full quote includes more references to relativity than I posted). And the top scientists no doubt know that Einstein's relativity is a hoax. But they are stuck with the hoax! They have to become gatekeepers against their own will, because otherwise the mainstream scientific community will reject them, and they will become poor and homeless.

The lists below are some of the names of the papers Einstein has published. The list demonstrates that Einstein was somewhat varied in subject matter as an author. I often wondered if he was given other scientists patents and ideas to rewrite and to possibly put the 'correct' spin on because it is hard for me to imagine that for such technical papers, that Einstein would have time to conceive of, reconsider, write several drafts of and then write those papers all himself, even if co authored in such short time spans. The mental time needed for each paper take times to develop. I know PhD's who have spent years on one just one paper.

Some papers written by Einstein:On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of LightOn the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid, as Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of HeatOn the Electrodynamics of Moving BodiesDoes the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?Thermodynamic fluctuations and statistical physicsPrinciple of relativity.Photon and QuantumEinstein solidOld quantum theoryWave–particle dualityCritical opalescenceZero-point energyHistory of general relativityPrinciple of equivalence, Theory of relativity, and Einstein field equationsHole argumentGravitational wavesCosmologySchrödinger equationBose–Einstein statisticsStress–energy–momentum pseudotensorClassical unified field theoriesWormholeEinstein–Cartan theoryEinstein–Infeld–Hoffmann equations

Einstein was a prolific writer. Below you will find how many papers Einstein published per decade. Lot's of his papers were co authored but still, the list rivals Miles Mathis. I think I remember reading how prolific Einstein was as a writer here at CF but I couldn't find the post to link to it. I wanted to finish that thought and show the statistics. All my data is from the official party line: Albert Einstein Wiki

At his most prolific, Einstein published 24 papers in one year, 1905, smack dab in the middle of his years working at the Swiss Patent Office which was from 1902 to 1909. Einstein was an information machine.

These excerpts from the essay “Science: Pro and Con”, by G. K. Chesterton (The Illustrated London News, October 9th, 1909) criticize the modern-day glorification of science and bovine confidence in "canonized" scientists like Einstein and Hawking.

[...] For what we have suffered from in the modern world is not in any sense physical knowledge itself, but simply a stupid mistake about what physical knowledge is and what it can do. It is quite as obvious that physical knowledge may make a man comfortable as it is that it cannot make a man happy. It is as certain that there are such things as drugs as that there are no such things as love-potions. Physical science is a thing on the outskirts of human life; adventurous, exciting, and essentially fanciful. It has nothing to do with the centre of human life at all. Telephones, flying-ships, radium, the North Pole are not in the ultimate sense good, but neither are they bad. Physical science is always one of two things: it is either a tool or a toy. At its highest and noblest, of course, it is a toy. A toy is a thing of far greater philosophical grandeur than a tool; for the very simple reason that a toy is valued for itself and a tool only for something else. A tool is a means, a toy is an end [...].

[...] The only evil that science has ever attempted in our time has been that of dictating not only what should be known, but the spirit in which it should be regarded. It does not in the least matter whether we look at a lamp-post or a tree as long as we look at it in a certain spirit. It does not in the least matter whether we talk through a telephone or through a hole in the wall so long as we talk sense. But we must not ask the lamp-post in what spirit it ought to be regarded. If we do, we shall find it as deaf as a post. We must not ask the telephone what we are to say to it. If we do, we shall find the young ladies at the exchange somewhat sharply insensible to the pathos of our position. Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say. If we are going on a great and just adventure, it will be all the more glorious to go on a flying-ship. But we must not stop in the middle of the adventure to ask the flying-ship what a just adventure is. If we are rushing to get married, it may be thrilling to rush in a motor-car; but we do not ask the motor-car whom we shall marry. Generally speaking, we hardly even ask the chauffeur. That quite elementary and commonplace principle suffices for all the relations of physical science with mankind. A man does not ask his horse where he shall go; neither shall he ask his horseless carriage; neither shall he ask the driver of his horseless carriage; neither shall he ask the inventor of his horseless carriage. Science is a splendid thing; if you tell it where to go to [...].

I also connect the theory of relativity to the ideas of moral relativity and subjugation to authority. It is not possible to know anything for certain, therefore we must rely on those with credentials to spoon feed reality to us.

Yes, I agree. Moral relativism is a whole other can of worms that seems to be in the realm of the pseudo-scientific psycho-babble-ists and all their related psy-ops. These psycho-gods decide for us what is right and what is wrong.

Of course, the "most wrong" thing one can do is to criticize them. [/quote]

Actually I just read this today and remembered a really interesting german author, who was a heavy critic of Einstein and always relied that only Kant had the actual solution to similiar problems but Kants ideas were emergingly, according to the author, repressed by the mainstream science community the more Einstein gained popularity. The author's name was: "Ernst Moses Markus". And his interesting works were called: "Kritik des Aufbaus (Syllogismus) der speziellen Relativitätstheorie und Kritik der herrschenden Hypothese der Lichtausbreitung." (My translation of the title: "criticisms of the structure (syllogism) of the special relativity theory and criticism of the ruling hypothesis of light propagation")

Now to moral relativism, Ernst Moses Markus, actually saw the exact same problem on that and even conspired the idea that 'Einstein' is in fact just a popular figure to encourage moral relativism, which would also explain the growing denial of Kant's ethics and philosophies, which were strictly build on moral principles and duty. Interestingly, there was actually a letter (or a part in his book; unfortunately I do not really remember. Sorry) by Einstein who tried to disprove the Time and Space explanation by Kant. Ernst Markus also criticizes modern physics in general and also reminded, similar to what Roger Schlafly said, that with Einstein physics became a whole bunch of speculative theories and would only end up in a death spiral that could make future experiments be covered by incredibly wrong theories. If we look at quantum physics and how crazily the scientific community tries to unify it with the theory of relativity, shows that science is no longer science, but more "dogmatic" science than ever before. Why did never anyone ask the ultimate question whether relativity theory is most likely wrong when quantum experiments disprove so many aspects of it? Additionally, a lot of critics also showed that the relativity theory (especially the special relativity theory) has a lot gaps and contradictions that still cannot explain the most common phenomena. And yet, everyone is seeking for explanations, but instead for looking for new ones, they try everything they can to get the relativity theory working with quantum physics. Ernst Markus also criticized that science is too focused on empiricism, and leaves out apriorism in general. He seeks for an unification of both apriorism and empiricism, because only then experiments could be truly verified and be theorized in a model. Everything else would just be pure speculation.

Would it also be too far fetched to say that the extreme complexity of many quantum formulas is actually the result of a lot of inaccuracies caused by the countless speculative mathematical models?

The lists below are some of the names of the papers Einstein has published. The list demonstrates that Einstein was somewhat varied in subject matter as an author. I often wondered if he was given other scientists patents and ideas to rewrite and to possibly put the 'correct' spin on because it is hard for me to imagine that for such technical papers, that Einstein would have time to conceive of, reconsider, write several drafts of and then write those papers all himself, even if co authored in such short time spans. The mental time needed for each paper take times to develop. I know PhD's who have spent years on one just one paper. ...Einstein was a prolific writer. Below you will find how many papers Einstein published per decade. Lot's of his papers were co authored but still, the list rivals Miles Mathis. I think I remember reading how prolific Einstein was as a writer here at CF but I couldn't find the post to link to it. I wanted to finish that thought and show the statistics. All my data is from the official party line: Albert Einstein Wiki

At his most prolific, Einstein published 24 papers in one year, 1905, smack dab in the middle of his years working at the Swiss Patent Office which was from 1902 to 1909. Einstein was an information machine.

Just finished the latest Clues Chronicles episode on Einstein and would like to thank you for mentioning the book by Wheeler. I'm in the middle of reading it now. It's so refreshing to read scientific material that doesn't accredit all phenomena to mysterious particles.

I think Einstein's paper writing prowess just shows that he was a front man for a group, the establishment, taking the credit for ideas not his own. That was the perfect way to dazzle humanity by his amazing intelligence. IMO, there was too much scientific advancement and they wanted to stop it, to keep control of the situation. Einstein was the control rod to the nuclear reactor.

molodyets » September 12th, 2017, 11:10 pm wrote:Just finished the latest Clues Chronicles episode on Einstein and would like to thank you for mentioning the book by Wheeler. I'm in the middle of reading it now. It's so refreshing to read scientific material that doesn't accredit all phenomena to mysterious particles.

I think Einstein's paper writing prowess just shows that he was a front man for a group, the establishment, taking the credit for ideas not his own. That was the perfect way to dazzle humanity by his amazing intelligence. IMO, there was too much scientific advancement and they wanted to stop it, to keep control of the situation. Einstein was the control rod to the nuclear reactor.

For someone who despises the scientific establishment as much as he claims, Ken Wheeler sure uses their same tactics: make the explanations/descriptions extremely complicated so people will think his intelligence far exceeds their own. Of course, horrible writing also helps.

A ‘field’ is the conceptual and mediated abstraction wrongly reified as an autonomous entity when in fact all fields are as relates to and of the Ether and an object that induces its appearance of which that object is necessarily of course comprised of stable dielectric Ether fields (matter), by logical necessity.

For anyone wishing to read his book, you must slosh through this kind of writing.

I couldn't resist posting this amusing photo of Einstein holding a puppet of himself...

The official story: the Yale Puppeteers (apparently gay activists) used the puppet in a play presented especially for Einstein at the Teatro Torito (a predecessor to the Turnabout Theater) while he was teaching at Caltech. Einstein liked the performance but didn´t think the puppet was fat enough so he got a letter out of his pocket, crumpled it up and stuffed it up under the puppet's smock.